Use My Photo? Not Without Permission

[Aquarium Dreams]

Part of what I'm trying to say is that licensing an image for commercial use shouldn't be as easy as ticking off a box. Before CC licenses, if a photographer wanted to license an image for commercial use, they had to jump through hoops which effectively check and balance ignorance. Stock photography sites are examples of this. When you upload images, they explain that if you have images of identifiable people, you will need model releases, which they offer for download. Even if the photographer in this instance doesn't read this information and sends images without model releases, the human who receives the images will check to see if it is there and reject the image if there is no model release.

Until the CC licenses existed, there was no possible way that the Virgin Mobile situation could have happened. It wouldn't have been possible for an image to be licensed for commercial use without the proper paperwork AND used by a company without any communication between the company and the photographer. What CC has done is created an enormous stock photo database that is entirely unregulated, and for that they should bear responsibility.

CC targets amateurs who are ignorant about the legal and business ends of photography, enables them to make their work available on a scale that they equally ignorant of, and then fails to inform them about the rights and responsibilities involved. Considering this, CC should also bear some of the responsibility for educating people, not simply about their licenses, but about copyright, model releases, and the legal and business ends of photography in general, since their licenses directly tie in with all of these things.

 

[abraxas]

The more I look at Creative Commons the more I see how it is about getting artists/photographers to sign away their rights under the guise of 'licensing.'

Here's the CC public relations response to being named in the lawsuit;

http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/7680

 

[table1349]

But how does the CC provide copyright? Who's to say I don't jump on one of your gallery posts gryphonslair99 take one of your images and apply the CCL? I actually didn't understand what Aquarian Dreams was saying myself.

danalec99 I see where your coming from now. Shouting about creative freedom from the hills while screwing the artists behind them is wrong in my books.

I was meaning that here in the US at least, putting my photos on a disk, sending them in to the U. S.Copyright Office , paying my money and receiving an official copyright for them. If this was a business thing for me I would never exhibit photos that I had not already received a documented copyright for. That will stand the test of ownership in a court of law.

 

[JHF Photography]

Would the original RAW file not be a reasonable amount of proof of ownership?

 

[abraxas]

Would the original RAW file not be a reasonable amount of proof of ownership?

.JPG/.TIFF from the RAW would be best/easiest to read.

http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html

Also note works can be pre-registered and as a group, ie;photographic works between 1/1/07 - 6/1/07 etc.

 

[GreenGate3000]

i agree with the statements above. i would be really disappointed if someone used any of my pictures without permission. I don"t understand why people would resort to stealing your personal photos when there are so many good stock photography web sites out there. when ever i need a good photo i go to http://www.glowimages.com/ glow images. They have a really good selection of different images. the best way to be on top of this problem is water mark your work or try to be aware by searching online as much as you can.

 

[Garbz]

Well really it wasn't stealing. The photographer gave it away.

As long as you don't post images any higher than viewing size like 1024x768 the ultimate use of the image for anything other than a desktop wallpaper is limited anyway.

 

[fmw]

I do not believe a model release is necessary in a public photography giving the Photographer free rein over the use of the photo.

I could be wrong but, Unless Virgin Mobile arranged this shot and/or the shot was taken with the intent to sell to Virgin Mobile or if the Photographer Informed the subject and neglected to state anything about model release forms, there is no fault or leagle violation.

But Like I said I could be wrong.

Unfortunately, you are wrong on all counts.

 

[JerryPH]

For the moment, I've made all my pics private except to family and friends... I'll go through them one by one and make public the ones that I wish (the ones that I feel are of no commercial value).

Though chances are extremely low, I refuse to be exploited or taken advantage of.

Traditionally my best pics are not shared online, I keep them on my computer under my thumb, but it seems that near any pic is a potential target. I'll be very selective as to what I make publically available from now on.

 

[Garbz]

Thats really a sad case where we can't share our best works anymore. I still have all my best public but they are sufficiently low resolution to not be printable.

 

[table1349]

That is the exact reason I have no links to my photos. They are all for Family or for the Athletes, their families and the Athletic Staff of the Collage I shoot for. Not worried about theft among those that have access.